Was he right?

You know just because he acted ammorally it doesn't mean he wasn't right

He made many valid points in his manifesto, most of which are unarguable. However, he ultimately directed his criticisms to the wrong enemy: technology itself, and not, as he himself at least mentions, leftism.
All technology, even large scale technology, as he calls it, is a tool. Misuse of a tool is to be blamed on the user, and not the tool itself.

Basically this.

I unironically support releasing him from jail.

Leftism is a consequence of technology affecting people unnaturally.

Hypocritical retard with muh "good technology" that can be replicated by an average Joe and "bad technology" that is too sophisticated to make in a basement workshop.

Explain the hypocritical bit. I don't understand you post. Go slow and steady because I'm not a genius.

>appeal to nature fallacy
It's rather unnatural for a planet to support organic life.

No.

His contemporaries viewed global capitalism and its need to facilitate production as the driving force behind tarnishing local and foreign natural resources in order to compete in an infinitely-growing market which finds itself on a finite planet.

Ted *nearly* realised this, then promptly went back to hate-boner the symptoms rather than the disease for the rest of his time.

What he says is that when technology hit a certain ceiling of complexity it started to affect us in a negative way, disrupting a way of life that was dominant in the pre-Industrial society. But how are you even supposed to measure it?

This isn't really correct at all. Technology isn't just a tool. He particularly criticises industrial technology. You can't just "use" industrial technology, you need a system and infrastructure around it, which influences society.

If you allow a tool to influence you in a negative way, you're the tool

MIKE WAZOWSKI

Leftism is an American political meme that doesn't mean anything

>Explain the hypocritical bit
claims to care about society
kills people

This is pretty simplistic thinking. Technology isn't something you choose to use. For example, I have the lights on. The reason I have the lights on is because society is based around a different way of living that requires you to be awake at night doing things.

I am using a computer, because I need a job, and most jobs require you to use a computer. To use a computer, there are certain negative consequences, like having to sit down in one spot, etc.

Anyway, I am not sure you have put much thought into your statements.

Where did he claim to care about society? As far as I know. all he wanted was a message to get heard.

Attached: mike wazowski on leftists.png (814x578, 454K)

i watched manhunt on netflix and what is this

>all he wanted was a message to get heard.
If you criticize something that obviously means you care about it, killing people is absolutely the wrong way to get your message heard as most people will just think you're a psychopath and the only people who take you seriously are morons like the OP who post this thread on Jow Forums every day

no, especially not about the sending bombs to people part
anarcho primitivism is stupid
the real redpill is post-scarcity anarchism

Is that when you get killed because you are no longer needed by the robot owners?

I'm not sure you've put much thought into your fucking life
You choose everything
If you don't like a technology you can choose to stop using it
If you don't like lights take them out
If you don't like industrial society go live in the jungle
I use a computer and I move around all the time, society is what forces you to sit in the same position for hours at once, not the technology

True.

tl;dr LMAO

Post-relevance is barely inching forward thanks to variously blended of artificiality we keep stacking on scarcity. Gonna be cool shit if we ever live that long though.

His message wouldn't have been made widespread if not for the killings. He justified this in the essay.

You sound like you haven't had sex in a while.

>You choose everything
Did I choose the job market? A technological society that no longer sleeps and wakes with the sun? etc?
>society is what forces
Society is shaped by technology.

When farming became the predominant form of societies, the hunter gatherers didn't "choose" to become farmers. They were killed, just as the Northern Sentinese would be if they weren't protected by the indian government. The ones that weren't killed had to adopt a farming lifestyle.

That is what technology is. A necessity due to competitive pressures. You either use it or don't survive. Some technology is just optional stuff, but that isn't really part of the discussion.

His message isn't widespread. The killings are. Nobody even cares about his message, which is fairly trite and not even a very original criticism of society in the first place

Most jobs still happen in the daytime my stupid friend
hunter-gatherers weren't killed en masse by farmers, what kind of retarded understanding of history do you have?
Farming just supports a hell of alot more people than hunting/gathering, so obviously the people who farm will grow to outnumber the people who hunt

>my stupid friend
uhu.... you haven't made any logical arguments yet.

>hunter-gatherers weren't killed en masse by farmers, what kind of retarded understanding of history do you have?
Farming just supports a hell of alot more people than hunting/gathering, so obviously the people who farm will grow to outnumber the people who hunt
So ahh, what happened when the farmers needed new farm land? Did they just ask the hunter gatherers to move out the road?

Farming necessitates conflict because it is based on ownership of land.

So far you have claimed everything is a choice and not realized how stupid that claim is. "You don't have to drink water, you will just die". That is basically your argument.

>Most jobs still happen in the daytime my stupid friend
Sun rises at 5am not 9am, but that wasn't really the point. The neighbourhood around you has lights on. You can't turn your neighbours lights off. You seem to be dismissing everything, including network effects.

>uhu.... you haven't made any logical arguments yet.
try going outside at nighttime and seeing how busy it is compared to daytime
90% of people work during the day

Running out of land to farm happened thousands of years after the development of agriculture, and if you're a slobbering retard who wants to return to that lifestyle there's ample opportunity for you to do so on almost any continent
And don't act like tribes didn't come into conflict with each other over hunting grounds either, it's basically the same thing except they move around alot and make less efficient use of the land

These threads always turn to shit like "Inventing fire directly led to every circumstance of decaying capitalist society, but capitalism good just fire bad."

really retarded overly simplistic logic

do you really think we're the same kind of people in quality and character as ancient romans for example?

Yeah, anyway, back to the topic. So yeah, the hunter gatherers died off because farmers could produce more people. That is true, but it is not a counter-argument.

Whether you end a particular way of life via replacement, killing, or whatever else, the whole point I was making to counter your point is that you don't have a choice.

I am pretty sure you are a kid, but as an adult, the only reason I have a mobile phone is because my boss requires me to have one so he can contact me and because friends expect you to have one.

I didn't choose to have a mobile phone. I don't want a mobile phone. I don't want to work these shitty modern jobs. You are making a ridiculous claim that everybody in society can just do whatever the fuck they want and just use technology whenever they feel like it. They can't.

It is the same as saying "you can walk outside naked all day". You can't. Society has rules. Society is also shaped by technology. You have to live within that society and use its technology and everything else.

>do you really think we're the same kind of people in quality and character as ancient romans
yeah because you know the quality and character of ancient romans based on texts written in a language you don't know about the most famous people of their time
fucking retard

>hunter-gatherers weren't killed en masse by farmers
Yes, they were, although it took longer than people realize. What are the Umman Manda?

>I don't want a mobile phone. I don't want to work these shitty modern jobs
Then don't
Grow the fuck up
You can choose anything, and every choice has upsides and downsides
I don't use a phone, I don't have a shitty job, I made sacrifices to get there, I don't sit around complaining and daydreaming and saying "wouldn't it all be better if we still lived like monkeys". The monkey lifestyle is still available to you

I know for a fact that there were countless times when other cities of their time would sue for peace or be assimilated into other peoples or not rebuild their city and just move on but they were tenacious enough to persist and never give up even after suffering extremely heavy losses.

so yes you can tell about their qualities as a people by their mere actions alone, not by descriptions of themselves by themselves.

you fucking ignorant retard.

Dont worry dude youre just as alpha as a legionnaire soldier and capable of the same deeds if you just got off your couch for a day

what the fuck are you talking about? why do you think modern people would act any differently?

are you being serious?

because a lifetime of sedentary behavior with no outside risk creates different kinds of people than a warrior society living in constant risk of annihilation

>You can choose anything, and every choice has upsides and downsides
The downside of being a hunter gatherer was not existing. I mean, wasn't it? A little hunter gatherer tribe versus a thousand farming people? That is how it went.

You are just reverting back to the "you don't have to drink water, you will just die" argument.

Why don't you look on a map and tell me where I can live a hunter gatherer lifestyle? You know why those North Sentinese people exist? They are on a remote island. You know why they can't go anywhere else? They have no choice.

Your argument is so simplistic you basically haven't put any thought into it at all and are proud of it. You choose to stay ignorant yet are confidently ignorant.

The idea of Ted and so on is to discuss how to change society to make it better. Your argument is "you don't need to participate in society, go live in the forest". To begin with, you kind of want other people to come with you. So your first thing you have to do is convince other people. Life isn't as simple as you have made it because you haven't put any thought into what you are saying.

>Why don't you look on a map and tell me where I can live a hunter gatherer lifestyle?
Brazil
Oceania
Africa
Really you can do it anywhere that isn't urbanized including North America if there's enough wilderness and the authorities don't catch you

>You are just reverting back to the "you don't have to drink water, you will just die" argument.
I don't use technology or live a lifestyle I don't dislike yet somehow I'm still alive

>Your argument is "you don't need to participate in society, go live in the forest". To begin with, you kind of want other people to come with you
You have no right to force people to change their lifestyle because you're too afraid to do it on your own any more than other people have the right to force you to use cellphones or Facebook to get a job. Basically you sound like a cwoard.

Lol you're fucking retarded, he's arguing on a completely different level than you

>Implying it wasn't simply a necessary step to get his manifesto heard

Attached: 14938595643290.gif (181x292, 1.98M)

>bro everyone has the agency to exit society on a whim and live happily ever after
You’ve got to be fucking kidding me
You have freedom to choose but for god’s sake you aren’t free of consequence in this life, and the consequence is what everyone else in this thread is arguing

>Brazil
>Oceania
>Africa
>Really you can do it anywhere that isn't urbanized including North America if there's enough wilderness and the authorities don't catch you
I live in Australia. Firstly, the whole country is owned by someone, whether the government or private ownership. Secondly, the only people allowed to hunt in a traditional sense are a small group of aboriginal people given the right by law. Most of Australia is also either uninhabitable or farm land, or urban land.

That is why the North Sentinese are trapped on an island. You can't just live how you want. That is why hunter gatherer societies don't exist. The authorities, as you call them, will find you, if you can even find an area that is suitable for that lifestyle.

>You have no right to force people to change their lifestyle because you're too afraid to do it on your own
What you won't admit is that your lifestyle is mostly not your choice. You are claiming it is all your choice, but it isn't. From the amount of pollution in the air caused by industrialization, to everything else, you are just part of the society you live in. You can't choose to have clean air. You will go on about living in a air filtered vacuum or something ridiculous now I imagine.

All we are doing is discussing ideas anyway, not forcing anybody to do anything. A lot of people are noticing that modern society is greatly harming us. The amount of people with a mental illness is ridiculous. So we are talking about how we can live differently as a society.

You think society is just a bunch of individuals doing whatever they want, but it obviously isn't. The very fact that there are laws and governments mean that isn't the case.

>What you won't admit is that your lifestyle is mostly not your choice
It is
You just can't choose all of the good with none of the bad
Every choice as upsides and downsides
If you live in China you can choose to work hard enough to get enough money so you can immigrate to Australia where there isn't any air pollution, but the downside is you're a foreigner in a strange land
Today we have mental illness. In the past we had war and poverty. Which do you think is better? The former only manifests because life-or-death situations tend to surpress the subtle elements of mental illnesses - you don't feel "depressed" when you're fighting for your life. Posting serial killiers and whining that industrial society sucks because you have to use social media and the world should change instead of you is incredibly weak. The only thing you have any power to change is yourself and your own lifestyle

No
The problem is not tech, but capitalist values

Is this Dexter Morgan?

what's with teddyposting recently on all boards?

i mean, i love the guy and shit, but what's with the sudden surge?

samefagging

>His message isn't widespread. The killings are. Nobody even cares about his message,
He said in a thread full of people discussing his message because he killed people. The problem wasn't the bombs. The problem was how small they were.

Attached: okcity.jpg (1158x1400, 389K)

fpbp

Sane critiques of industrial society have had a much bigger impact than the unabomber

>hunter-gatherers weren't killed en masse by farmers

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 20K)

like what

Depends what you think "the problem" is, industrial society means basically anything
First world countries do alot less polluting now for one although I suppose you could argue that ecoterrorists made that happen (they didn't)

it was more about the impact on society and human psychology than pollution lol

>First world countries do alot less polluting now for one
In 3rd world countries children are burning electronics and breathing in deadly fumes to gather copper to sell to 1st world countries for money so they can buy food
So yeah technically we're not the ones polluting, it's them, but whose fault is it?

Attached: ewaste_greenpeace[1].jpg (800x533, 120K)

he's pretty critical of leftism though
the entire first quarter of his manifesto predicted exactly how social justice became an unquestioned positive development in the west

>Sane critiques
*notices lack of threads about those*

>much bigger impact
Right now people are responding to industrial society by chopping their dicks off. If I thought my critique had a big impact on the current state of affairs, then I'd keep my fucking mouth shut about it.

Attached: 1543433709498.jpg (735x620, 84K)

because most people never read the manifesto and think it has something to do with living in the woods since ted was living there when he was caught
truth is ISaIF is more about gene editing tech like crispr than anything else

>*notices lack of threads about those*
People only talk about retarded shit on Jow Forums. Nobody cares about good ideas because they're not sensationalist enough. People chopping their dicks off doesn't have anything to do with industry, unless you want to blame industry for driving the first world to abundance so people now have the time and freedom to lose themselves in that sort of delusion

Most pollution comes from China

>Most pollution comes from China
according to stuides done by (((american))) scientists

If you deny this you have literally no clue what you're talking about
All you need to do is step foot in a major Chinese city

because it's extremely prescient and the intersection of all the topics in the manifesto are finally reaching the general population

Attached: 1539644600294.png (735x601, 133K)

>driving the first world to abundance
While increasingly causing massive and irreversible damage to the environment.
Society doesn't progress for shit, it just pushes externalities further and further way.

>he's pretty critical of leftism though
The twisted irony of the whole situation is the conservatives love to quote his thing about liberals but they pay no attention to what he says about them.

>The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can’t make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values.

The leftist gets a pile of paragraphs explaining their psychology and its complex relationship with the problem of industrialization. Conservatives get: You're a bunch of dumb ineffective cucks. This is so self-evident that I only need one paragraph to show it.

Attached: 1543483543379.jpg (640x758, 298K)

>People only talk about retarded shit on Jow Forums.
The man who wrote this has an IQ higher than 170. Apparently retarded is not a requirement for Jow Forums discussion.

>People chopping their dicks off doesn't have anything to do with industry
Which part isn't due to industrial society? The part where we've introduced a million chemicals in to our environment with almost no study of their effects? The part a segment of society has decided to demonize masculinity? The part where the family has all but been destroyed? The part where we mass produce drugs to act like estrogen in the body? The part where we mass produce drugs to make the body ignore testosterone? The part where governments are starting to consider it child abuse to not allow your child to take these drugs? The part where we construct operating rooms? The part where people spend a decade of their life learning how to use these operating rooms? The part where we mass produce sterile surgical instruments? The part where we leverage centuries of trial and error to perform a cosmetic surgery that reduces functionality? The part where we fill the patient full of antibiotics to prevent them from dying from the huge hole we just put in their crotch? The part where they shove a lathed metal object in that wound for the rest of their life? The part where they have to go to therapy for the rest of their life to convince them it's worth living? The part where we mass produce guns and ammo? The part where the poor fuck finally gets one and finds a way out of this industrial hell?

Which part of this isn't a result of industrialization?

This

>the world is black and white
Grow up.

Of courshe!

t. dumb ineffective cuck

Attached: ecoterroristgf.jpg (640x477, 36K)

I think he was right in his analysis of societal problems, but focused too much on technology.
If the government spies on your smartphone is it because
1: The government sucks and is oppressive
2: Tech companies suck and are oppressive
3: The people suck because they let the government spy on them
4: The technology of a Smarthpone sucks

I'd argue that 4 is the least important point
While yes, technology makes it easier for people to control others, it's not their fault. Just like it's not the gun manufacturers fault if you get shot. People have morals and values, science and technology does not.

kind of, technology has risks that mostly go ignored but he took it to a level of autism where he ignored the benefit